Previous | Next
628629630631632633634635636637638639640641642643644645646647648649650651652653654655656657658659660661662663664665666667668669670671672673674675 of 755
I was willing to stay with it, because at that point in history we had good profits on
television, and this was a way to invest in the future of a service that I was sure was going to
come--just as sure as the expression goes, “God made little green apples.” It just had to
happen, and obviously it did happen.
But all news, in my book, except for a very few unusual situations, is better on the radio than
television. The program will go around the corner, you can have it in your car, have it in your
bed with you.
[END TAPE ONE, SIDE ONE; BEGIN TAPE ONE, SIDE TWO]
Radio is just, you know, so universal. That's why Voice of America was so effective or Radio
Free Europe was so effective. You can't stop it at the border. You can stop magazines and
newspapers from coming in, physically, but you can't stop a radio signal from going across
the border. Television doesn't travel as far as radio, so it doesn't lend itself to crossing
borders the same way radio does. Radio is just one fantastic service.
Let me ask you a question. I was thinking of asking you this anyway. It came up now.
I'd like to hear your judgment about some people--particularly on radio, but also television,
who you feel are good interviewers around serious issues.
I want to be sure I understand. You're talking about the effectiveness of doing a
serious interview on television versus radio?
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help